KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce compet

On 12 October 2017, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) published a draft decision accepting the commitments of Dutch airline KLM (KLM) and Amsterdam Schiphol airport (Schiphol). The commitments are aimed at eliminating the competition concerns identified by the ACM on the basis of a four-year investigation into interactions between KLM and Schiphol about growth opportunities of other airlines at Schiphol and airport capacity.

In 2013, the ACM started an investigation to assess whether KLM and Schiphol protected KLM's position at the airport in relation to other airlines. The ACM found that KLM and Schiphol had interactions regarding the allocation of airport capacity and facilities between KLM and its competitors. The ACM concluded in its draft decision that "such interactions created the risk that Schiphol would not set its strategy independently, but change it to accommodate KLM’s wishes. In this way, the growth opportunities of other airlines may have been frustrated". As a result, competition could be hindered and the position of the other airlines operating at Schiphol might be weakened. To address the ACM concerns, KLM and Schiphol offered the following commitments:

KLM and Schiphol will not have any contact with each other about: (i) the growth potential of other airlines at Schiphol and (ii) requests from competitors for airport facilities.

Schiphol will independently determine its tariff changes, marketing policies and investments. Any contact between KLM and Schiphol on these topics has to reported in writing.

Schiphol will create objective criteria to deal with requests from airlines for airport facilities.

KLM and Schiphol will (i) report to the ACM on the implementation of these commitments over a period of four months and (ii) allow the ACM to have access to the relevant documentation (e.g. reports on contacts and decisions on facility requests).

The ACM maintains that these commitments are sufficiently effective to address the competition risks identified and that they will help create a level playing field for airlines at Schiphol. The commitments will be binding for five years, although the ACM has the power to extend the duration if necessary. Interested parties have six weeks to respond to the commitments. The draft decision emphasizes that the ACM has not established an infringement and that by offering these commitments KLM and Schiphol do not acknowledge any violation of competition law.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies: